Conflict in Darfur, Sudan - The Mega Thread

[Colin Parkinson]

Sudan is all about oil, but it doesn't count because the oil is not destined for the US, therefore oil does not matter....I hope that is clear enough for you to understand Leftthink.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Has Sudan accepted even UN logistical support for the AU force or not?

China welcomes agreement among Sudan, UN, AU on Darfur issue
http://english.people.com.cn/200704/12/eng20070412_365985.html

China on Thursday welcomes an agreement reached in a tripartite meeting among the Sudanese government, the United Nations (UN) and the African Union (AU), calling for resolving the Darfur issue through equal dialogues.

Foreign Ministry spokesman Qin Gang said this at a regular press conference in response to a question concerning the tripartite meeting .

Representatives of the three parties reached the agreement on increasing UN logistic support [emphasis added] for the AU peacekeeping force in Darfur during a tripartite meeting held in the Ethiopian capital Addis Ababa on Monday.

"We hope parties concerned continue to implement the peace plan put forward by by former UN chief Kofi Annan through equal dialogues, and properly settle the Darfur issue so as to promote early peace, stability and development in the region," Qin said.

The Sudanese government, the UN and the AU worked out last November a three-phase support package concerning the light and heavy logistic supports to be provided by the UN to AU's peacekeeping force in Darfur.

Source: Xinhua

Sudan under new pressure to accept UN peacekeepers
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/africa/article1642673.ece

International pressure is mounting on Sudan to accept a United Nations peacekeeping force in the war-ravaged region of Darfur amid fears of a dangerous conflagration engulfing neighbouring countries.

The United States said that it would hold off from imposing new sanctions to allow time for a global diplomatic offensive to make Khartoum accept UN peacekeepers to bolster a struggling African Union force...

President Mbeki of South Africa and John Negroponte, the US Deputy Secretary of State, are the latest high-level envoys to fly into the region to press the case for peacekeepers. Their visits come after bloody border clashes between Sudan and Chad.

Thirty fighters from both sides were killed in clashes on Monday when the Chadian Army crossed over into Sudan in pursuit of rebels, before being beaten back by Sudanese troops. Sudan accused Chad of violating border agreements while Chad blamed the rebels for the initial incursion...

Mr Mbeki met President el-Bashir in Khartoum yesterday to urge him to accept the final stage of the UN peace plan for Darfur, which proposes a force of UN and AU peacekeepers [emphasis added]. But in a rare rebuke China, Sudan’s biggest ally and trading partner, urged Sudan this week to be more flexible on the peacekeeping plan...

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Kirkhill]

By the way - don't worry about the CF running out of employment after 2009.  On Duffy's show Dawn Black and Denis Coderre were speculating about the utility of airconditioned tanks in Darfur.  It seems like the Liberals and the NDP already have the plannning well under weigh.  : (Sarcasm implied).

 

[MarkOttawa]

This is some progress, but will Sudan allow anything further?  What it has accepted so far will hardly be enough to be effective.
http://www.sanluisobispo.com/349/story/15473.html

The U.N. chief said Thursday he's encouraged by an agreement with Sudan to beef up the African Union force in Darfur with U.N. forces and equipment, while Britian's ambassador predicted Sudan would also accept helicopter gunships.

Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon told reporters has been trying to assure the Sudanese government that the helicopters are "not for any offensive purpose" because the 7,000-strong AU force is in Darfur on a peacekeeping mission and that will be the U.N.'s role as well.

"But when you deploy troops you need to have ... mobility with some capacity to deterrence," he said...

The United Nations and Sudan agreed in November on a three-stage plan to strengthen the AU force, to culminate with the deployment of a joint AU-U.N. force with 17,000 troops and 3,000 police officers. But Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir has since backed off from the final stage, saying he would only allow a larger AU force, with technical and logistical support from the United Nations.

The first phase, a light support package including U.N. police advisers, civilian staff and additional resources and technical support, has already been sent to Darfur.

The U.N., AU and Sudan agreed on a second phase last Monday - including more than 3,000 U.N. troops, police, and other personnel as well as substantial aviation and logistics equipment - except the attack helicopters.

Asked whether he was confident that all problems with the second phase were resolved and discussions could now move on to the third phase with the larger U.N. force, Ban told reporters Thursday, "One always needs to have a bit of hope, based on optimism."..

Meanwhile, Senegal said it may pull its peacekeepers out of Darfur region if the African Union is unable to ensure their safety, an influential Cabinet group in this West African country said Thursday.

The deaths of five Senegalese peacekeepers in Darfur a little over a week ago brought to 16 the number of peacekeepers killed in the region since African Union forces were sent there three years ago. Senegal has about 500 troops in the AU force...

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

Darfur realities?
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-menard_smith14apr14,0,678630.story?track=ntothtml

...ROBERT MéNARD is secretary-general of Reporters Without Borders, an organization that defends press freedoms. STEPHEN SMITH writes on African affairs from Paris.

DO YOU THINK the United States was wrong to invade Iraq even if it did so with the intention of bringing freedom to the victims of Saddam Hussein? Do you believe that long-standing conflicts in faraway countries cannot be solved with military solutions that fail to address the underlying causes of the crisis?

If so, how can you imagine that deploying thousands, or more likely tens of thousands, of foreign soldiers in Darfur, a Sudanese province bigger than Iraq, is all it would take to stop the massacre there? When we went to Darfur in March, we were as desperate as anybody about the killings — and we still are. But what we learned in Sudan makes us wary of do-gooders in body armor — and of the double-think of balkanized minds branding as disaster in Iraq what they recommend for Darfur's salvation. We ought to have serious doubts about this new mission to civilize, done up in the latest colors. Without a political solution brokered by the international community, there will be no peace to keep and even less to impose.

In Khartoum and in North Darfur, we met Sudanese who were traumatized by their country's tragedy, but also much better informed than us. Their views differed, but none of them perceived the conflict as one between "victims" and "butchers." Yet, Manichaeism prevails in the West, where the cause is assumed to be simple: An Islamist Arab regime has decided to exterminate Darfur's black population and is carrying out genocide with the help of the Riders of the Apocalypse, the infamous janjaweed militia. There is hardly any mention in the U.S. or European media of how humanitarian aid organizations — and Darfur's civilians — are also fleeing from atrocities committed by rebels in Darfur opposed to Khartoum.

[...]

If indeed the regime in Khartoum is engaging in genocide, then there can be no compromising with it — and regime change must be the order of the day. But myriad independent investigations indicate that about 40,000 Darfurians were killed from March 2003 to December 2004 in atrocious circumstances, and 90,000 more people died of hunger or disease, the indirect victims of the civil war. Since then, the violence has been abating...

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Colin Parkinson]

So almost 1/2 million people dead in slightly more than a year, the solution, more talk.....as long as it's not me or my family being killed, no need to rush. It's much better now, they are only killing a thousand a month now. :

 

[Spartan]

Figured this should go here.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6559897.stm

Sudan agrees to UN peacekeepers
An African Union soldier stands guard in the village of Goes Being in Darfur
The African Union force is struggling to halt the violence
More than 3,000 United Nations troops will be allowed into Darfur, according to Sudanese Foreign Minister Lam Akol.

The apparent change of heart comes after months of international pressure, but there is no UN confirmation so far.

Mr Akol told a news conference that Sudan has now fully accepted the second phase of a UN plan to support 7,000 struggling African Union troops there.

Under the plan, UN attack helicopters and armoured personnel carriers will also be deployed to help AU forces.

The four-year Darfur conflict between rebels and pro-government Arab militia has seen more than 200,000 deaths and at least 2.4 million displaced.

UN DARFUR PLAN
Map of Darfur, western Sudan
Phase 1 - UN financial backing for AU mission
Phase 2 - UN sends logistical and military support
Phase 3 - UN takes joint command of hybrid force

A spokesman for the foreign ministry told the BBC that Sudan's acceptance had been passed on to African Union Chairman Alpha Omar Konare.

Mr Konare is currently in New York to brief UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and the Security Council.

UN officials said they were aware of the Sudanese announcement, but had not yet been told anything officially.

Outrage

Earlier, British aid agency Oxfam launched an appeal for humanitarian aid for the Darfur region of Sudan and east Chad.

Oxfam says it needs £5m ($10m) to help displaced people in the region who continue to flee from violence.

"This is the greatest concentration of human suffering in the world and an outrage that affronts the world's moral values," Penny Lawrence, Oxfam's international director said after a tour of Darfur.

The international aid agency is currently providing clean water, health and sanitation services to more than 500,000 people in Darfur and eastern Chad.

"Nearly 1 million people are not getting any aid at all and in some areas the aid efforts is under threat due to increasing insecurity," an Oxfam statement said.

Visiting US official John Negroponte had also warned Sudan of isolation if it fails to stop harassment of humanitarian workers and rejects the deployment of UN peacekeepers in the war-torn region.

"The denial of visas and harassment of aid workers has created the impression that the government of Sudan is engaged in a deliberate campaign of intimidation," he said at the end of his tour of Sudan.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Pact reached to send 3,000 peacekeepers to Darfur region
Sudan agrees to first major deployment of UN troops to aid African Union soldiers
AP, April 17
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20070417.SUDAN17/TPStory/International

Sudan agreed yesterday to let 3,000 UN peacekeepers deploy in Darfur with attack helicopters, opening the door to the first significant UN force to help beleaguered African Union soldiers who have been unable to halt the region's four-year war.

After five months of stalling, the government in Khartoum called for a speedy deployment.

It hinted it could approve an even larger United Nations force that has been demanded by the Security Council, the United States and others.

But experts were cautious about the chances for creating that 20,000-strong force, noting that Sudan's leaders have reversed course previously on occasion after announcing vague agreements for action in Darfur...

U.S. diplomats and UN officials said they would remain cautious until UN peacekeepers are on the ground in Sudan's vast western province, where more than 200,000 people have been killed and 2.5 million chased from their homes since the conflict began in 2003.

"We'll see whether they've agreed when they actually start to deploy," acting U.S. ambassador Alejandro Wolff told reporters.

The U.S. State Department, responding to the agreement, said the announcement omitted several key provisions for the UN force's effective operation, including leaving its command and control unspecified and limiting the participation of non-African troops [emphasis added].

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I am sure they are hoping that the UN force will send something that in Sudan's eye will violate the agreement and stall everything again, while they blame the UN.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Colin P: A letter of mine in the Ottawa Citizen today:
http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=6487e1eb-4e5c-4b9b-9699-722ed511db39

Why not Darfur?

Janice Kennedy asks: "Why Afghanistan and not, say, Darfur?"
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/citizensweekly/story.html?id=2d5659df-a7a9-4f32-be3a-00d21af2f07e

There are very good reasons why.

The NATO mission in Afghanistan has the unanimous authorization of the United Nations Security Council, and is there at the invitation of the legitimately elected government of the country.

Meanwhile, the government of Sudan refuses to allow an effective UN force to be deployed to Darfur. Without that permission, peacemaking in Darfur can only take the form of an invasion of Sudan, with no Security Council mandate. Such an invasion would certainly be bloody and raise the wrath of the Muslim world. Hence, there is no appetite in the international community for such a course of action.

Does Ms. Kennedy think that Canada should invade Sudan on its own?

If so, how does she propose that we do it?

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I think the terms: SPLAT!!!! or "Owned" apply to that letter, well done!!!!

 

[GAP]

Why Sudan is now allowing UN troops in Darfur
Sudan announced Monday it would allow 3,000 international peacekeepers in, leading the US and Britain to increase pressure.
By Howard LaFranchi | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
Article Link

WASHINGTON - International pressure from the United Nations, Arab leaders, and the United States played a role in Sudan's concession this week to allow 3,000 UN peacekeepers into the country's troubled Darfur region.

So, apparently, did the image concerns of China – both one of Sudan's biggest commercial partners and an increasingly outgoing international power – as it prepares to host the 2008 Summer Olympics.

But while some international leaders are jumping to praise Sudan's uncustomary openness to international intervention in Darfur, the US and Britain are seizing the moment to increase pressure on Sudan.

As the conflict that has left more than 200,000 people dead and 2.5 million displaced continues unabated, questions are surfacing over which approach is likely to stem the crisis most quickly.

Some experts say Sudan simply continues to play the international community by stringing out its concessions to make them appear to be major breakthroughs, even though they are unlikely to get at the heart of Darfur's strife.
More on link

 

[MarkOttawa]

Sudan Flying Arms to Darfur, Panel Reports
NY Times, April 18
http://www.nytimes.com/learning/students/pop/articles/18sudan.html

A confidential United Nations report says the government of Sudan is flying arms and heavy military equipment into Darfur in violation of Security Council resolutions and painting Sudanese military planes white to disguise them as United Nations or African Union aircraft.

In one case, illustrated with close-up pictures, the report says “U.N.” has been stenciled onto the wing of a whitewashed Sudanese armed forces plane parked on a military apron at a Darfur airport. Bombs guarded by uniformed soldiers are laid out in rows by its side.

The report says that, contrary to the Sudanese government’s earlier denials to United Nations investigators, the freshly painted planes are being operated out of all three of Darfur’s principal airports and used for aerial surveillance and bombardments of villages, in addition to the transportation of cargo.

The report was compiled by a five-person panel responsible for helping the Council’s sanctions committee monitor compliance with resolutions on Darfur, the war-ravaged region in Sudan. It was made available by a diplomat from one of the 15 Council nations, which believes that the findings ought to be made public...

The report covers recent conduct, from September 2006 to March 12, 2007, and emerged a day after Sudan announced it was dropping its objections to large-scale United Nations assistance to the overwhelmed African Union peacekeeping force in Darfur. Sudan said Monday that it would agree to a force of 3,000 military police officers, along with six attack helicopters and other aviation and logistics support.

Left uncertain was whether Sudan would drop its longstanding resistance to a proposed 21,000-member joint African Union-United Nations force, to replace the 7,000-member African Union force that has said it cannot curb the violence there.

Sudan signaled its willingness to accept the interim force at a moment when at least two countries on the Security Council, Britain and the United States, were threatening tough new sanctions because of Sudan’s stalling tactics...

Administration Still Weighing Sudan Options
Washington Post, April 18
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/17/AR2007041701853.html

President Bush will use an appearance today at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum to address the crisis in Darfur. But as of late yesterday, administration officials were still weighing how far the president will go after a last-minute gambit by the Sudanese president that seemed designed, at least in part, to head off coercive U.S. action...

The White House has for months been working on a "Plan B" for Darfur, which contemplates tough financial sanctions and other measures to pressure the government of the Sudanese president, Lt. Gen. Omar Hassan al-Bashir, if it does not comply with international demands to allow a robust peacekeeping force into Sudan...

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

Bush Unveils And Delays Sanctions For Sudan
Deferral Made Upon U.N. Chief's Request
Washington Post, April 19
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/18/AR2007041801022.html

President Bush unveiled a new package of sanctions against Sudan yesterday for failing to cooperate with international efforts to end what he described as the "genocide" in the Darfur region -- but promptly postponed it to give the U.N. secretary general time to pursue a diplomatic solution to the crisis.

Until Tuesday night, the White House had been planning to use the speech to impose a "Plan B" for Sudan, a long-anticipated plan that includes new financial sanctions targeting 29 companies owned or controlled by the Sudanese government, as well as three people involved in fomenting violence in Darfur. Bush and his aides have been increasingly frustrated by their inability to prod Sudan to cooperate in efforts to end the humanitarian crisis in the troubled region, where as many as 450,000 people have died and more than 2 million have been made homeless after attacks from government-sponsored militias.

But the administration plan was upended by a last-minute plea Tuesday from Secretary General Ban Ki Moon to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, requesting more time to work out a diplomatic solution with Sudan's president, Lt. Gen. Omar Hassan al-Bashir. Ban bluntly told Rice that now is not the time to be enforcing new sanctions on Sudan, said U.S. and U.N. sources familiar with the conversation...

Administration officials said they are skeptical of Bashir's intentions, citing the endless haggling over a peacekeeping force for Darfur that is supposed to eventually include more than 20,000 U.N. and African Union soldiers and police officers. Deputy Secretary of State John D. Negroponte called Bush from Khartoum on Tuesday and reported that Bashir was defiant and showed little indication that he would be accommodating, officials said...

Ban noted that Bashir's agreement this week to allow an initial deployment of 3,000 peacekeepers was his first diplomatic achievement as U.N. secretary general and that it had been greeted favorably by other nations, so a U.S. move to impose sanctions now would undercut that accomplishment. He also said that Bashir is convinced that the United States is acting in bad faith, so any move by the administration would simply reinforce his belief that the international community cannot be trusted, sources said...

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Which now explains Sudan’s move, however Bush has also shown them the price of not cooperating. The diplomatic equivalent of standing the back of the room quietly cleaning your fingernails with a big effin’ knife!

 

[North Star]

I think they've done this before. It's a drill for them:

1) Agree to UN troops;
2) Reject Visas for said UN troops;
3) Argue about it for 6 months;
4) Eject a few UN and NGO workers for trumped up charges such as "eating pork" or "drinking" to rile up the Islamists,
5) Apologize profusely for 2, but say no to a force as things have calmed.
6) Return to 1

Mark my words: by the time we get there, Khartoum will have achieved its goals in the region. After all, who's going to argue for an invasion/regime change with the superpower preoccupied elsewhere?

 

[cameron]

Personally I want nothing more than to see Canadian soldiers serving janjaweed their just desserts.  However, what one wants and what is feasible and practical are often two different things.  It is unfortunate that the U.S and U.K. made the foolish decision to get tied up in Iraq, but what's done cannot be undone, and the fact is with the world's two most powerful western militaries stretched thin in Iraq and Afghanistan, and Canada's excellent, but extremely undermanned and underequipped military heavily committed in Afghanistan, Darfur is just not possible right now.

Like Muffin said, I hope when the CF's transformation brings Canada to the desired level of military strength that its not too late by then.

 

[time expired]

Folks its a cruel hard world out there,Africa is just trying to fit its population to the economical
and environmental circumstances it finds itself faced with,and troops,money or peace corps,remember
them?,will not change things one iota.This effort by Africans is not a conscious one, but is driven by
disastrous enviromental changes caused by overpopulation,global warming and endemic corruption,
and there is nothing we in the west can do about it.
IMHO we should quit watching CNN and getting in a impotent rage about things we cannot change
I realize that this seems very callous and cynical but after watching African developments since 1945
its very hard to reach any other conclusions.
                                        Regards

 

[Quag]

So maybe Canada can't go in.  But many other nations have the ability and should.  When human rights are being neglected equally or worse than those in countries such as Afghanistan, WE as a whole, as human beings, have a duty and obligation to intervene to ensure that they are protected. 

Saying that, we know Canada doesn't have the numbers of logisitics AT THIS MOMENT.  When things change, I would like to see us there.  In the mean time, there are many nations that could and SHOULD be there doing something.  This is not what human beings should be subjected to ever.

 

[cameron]

Amen to that Quag!  There are a lot of countries other that the USA, UK, Canada and Australia that have large enough and/or capable enough militaries to do something about Darfur.  First of all, South Africa as the regional superpower needs to start pulling its weight in the region, instead of making excuses for its despotic neighbours.  If I remember correctly, the French Foreign Legion (one of my favourite military units) was founded largely for operations in Africa.  For centuries France had no problem using the Legion to defend imperialist interests and to prop up corrupt African dictators whom they supported.  Darfur is an excellent opportunity for a French government to  use the Legion for a truly worthy cause.  India is an emerging superpower, which I would like to see flex its muscles more, not just for the sake of flexing them, but what sense does it make having the world's fifth largest navy, and one of the largest, best equipped and best trained army and air force, if your not going to use them to redress some of the world's evils (and be a useful counterbalance to China). 

Closer to my neck of the woods, many of my Latin American neighbours, particulary Brazil and to a lesser extent Argentina, Chile and Peru have large and fairly proficient armies.  It would make Simon Bolivar dance in his grave to see the Latin American militaries he helped spawn shed their 20th century role of oppressors of dissent to take up a new mantle in the 21st century.  This would certainly increase their stature on the world stage.  There is another reason I have singled out some of the countries mentioned above.  Several of them, India, South Africa and Brazil are vying for permanent seats on the UN Security Council.  I am strongly of the opinion that permanent status on the Security Council should not just be some elitist reward that signals one has arrived.  This should be earned by taking an active role, militarily and otherwise, in fighting the world's depravities.